It includes a great quote by Sylvia Meagher expressing her doubt about the Lovelady claim.
And Johnson makes my point: that only by being there could Oswald have known that Shelley was in the doorway.
"Why is it that every time we look at the Altgens photo, we see the haunting face of Lee Harvey Oswald staring back at us?" Johnson asks.
He also quotes Helen Shirah's FBI statement as published by Harold Weisberg in Photographic Whitewash, where she said it's not just the "striking resemblance" of the man himself but also the striking resemblance of the clothing to Oswald's arrest clothing.
Then, Johnson addresses the open shirt and provides a picture of Oswald wearing his shirt that way. It's weird: Johnny Johnson was smart enough to do that but Robert Groden was not. Never in his HSCA work did he place a picture of Oswald in his shirt next to Doorman in his shirt. Unbefuckinglievable.
Then, he points out that Marrion Baker referred to Oswald's shirt as a "jacket" and that's because it had the lay of a jacket. And then he pointed out that both Baker and Whaley the cab driver were shown Oswald's arrest shirt and confirmed that it was the garment he was wearing.
Now, here is something interesting: Johnson refers to Doorman being "twisted" and "peeking around the corner". But, he wasn't in the corner. He was in the center of the doorway. We can see that in the Wiegman film. We can see it for over a full second in the Wiegman film. And he was was nowhere near the corner and had no need to peek around anything. It only looks that way because his shoulder was cut off by the imposition of Black Tie Man. Here is how he was standing, on the right, which matches to Wiegman perfectly.
Doorman was nowhere near that column. He was far away from it. It only looks like he's next to it because of the parallax effect of Altgens' angle.
Oh, what trouble we get into when we don't open our minds to photographic alteration.
And get this about the Idiot Groden: Johnson quotes him as saying that the FBI told Lovelady in advance of the 1964 photo shoot not to bother wearing the clothes he wore on 11/22.
"When the FBI called Lovelady about the coming in for the photo shoot, they told him not to bother wearing the same shirt." Groden
Johnson: "Neglecting to tell Lovelady to wear the same shirt is bad enough but to tell him not to bother wearing it is simply incomprehensible."
Indeed, why would they say that? It's one thing if they told him to wear it, but for them to say, out of the blue, "don't bother wearing the clothes you wore that day" is indeed incomprehensible. Why should they NOT want him to do it considering that they were taking pictures of him to demonstrate his plausibility as Doorway Man? So, they explicitly make a point of telling him NOT to do it?
Here's something else important: We all know about the letter to the FBI in which they said that Lovelady said he wore a vertical striped shirt and blue jeans, but Johnson also found an internal FBI memorandum which says the same thing. The memorandum is dated November 19, 1968. This whole piece is a PDF so I can't copy things easily, but you'll see it on page 30 and 31.
Johnson also quotes Jones Harris who also reported about the short-sleeved striped shirt that Lovelady told him he wore and that it was "buttoned up to the neck". And Jones Harris saw the inconsistency with Doorman.
Then, get this: Johnson alludes to the possibility of a Lovelady impostor. In talking about the Lovelady from the Martin film- whom we call Gorilla Man- Johnson says "or at least somebody was wearing a plaid shirt that day." That's right: somebody. Somebody other than Lovelady. But, it wasn't that day. We don't claim that they had a Lovelady impostor there on 11/22/63. That phony film was made afterwards. The footage was real, but they stuck Gorilla Man into it later on.
Johnson ends with an account the hassles that ensued when photographers tried to capture a picture of Billy Lovelady after the assassination. Thank God Mark Lane's man succeeded.
You really should read this piece by John Johnson. It is a classic of historic importance.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.